> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:gk@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 19 August, 2003 14:41
> To: RDFCore Working Group
> Subject: Re: Minutes of telecon: 2003-08-15
>
>
>
> At 12:25 18/08/03 +0100, Jan Grant wrote:
> >Item 11: I18N update.
> >
> > The WG discussed an upcoming objection from I18N.
> > em explained that we needed to give strong evidence that we had
> > explored the design space; that we had done "due diligence"
> > with the community; that we had considered and rejected
> > the objection for sound reasons.
> >
> > pats expressed the view (to some support) that the I18N problems
> > are generic XML ones, not RDF specific ones; that RDF wasn't
> > the place to address these.
>
> I believe Brian had been following a line that there was no
> substantiated
> foundation to the objection; i.e. that the I18N folks had
> failed to show
> any specific harm caused by the current proposal. If I'm
> right that this
> is the current position, then preparin a response based on
> our research of
> the design space seems to be missing the point.
Or perhaps, it is simply missing the second barrel of our shotgun,
and we can shoot down the objection from two positions rather than
just one.
(a) our decision reflects the most correct/optimal design
(b) the I18N has failed to identify any flaw in the design
Patrick